lou: ed henry is demanding access to the first question they were quoted in unison. did you beat tiger woods, for crying out loud. >> obviously he didn't or else he would have said so. look, it is pathetic we don't have access to the president playing golf. look, if they focus on things like benghazi and asked questions about the debt crisis we are to face and the deficit and the phony spending cuts and someone the president proposes which is now calling spending reform, whatever that is exactly. neillou: it is like investment. >> it requires real answers.

>> they treated the president like a celebrity. the novelty of the first african-american candidate for president, his election, has never been treated the way other presidents have been treated by the mainstream media. i wish there was one standard we could judge all policies. >> we are not close to that, the media used to be tough. lou: our colleagues at fox have done a great job reporting on benghazi. >> i would accept ed henry. lou: thank you very much and thank you for joining us. be with us tomorrow. good night, from new york. >> go to south dakota and oregon and washington and michigan and then we go to michiga washingto, to take over the white house.

neil: thank god for howard dean. the screamer is now a saint. saying something i call most of the voice i tell you is deafening. during a discussion of the whole budget mess, all i could say is prepare for your jaw to drop because i want you to remember the guy saying it. roll it. >> somebody had held a middle-class you do your taxes will go up or the programs will get cut or we will go into financial oblivion and nobody wants to tell them that. neil: he has gone from throwing grenades to heavy doses of something called reality. says we have a choice, everyone's taxes go up for a lot of programs get cut, either or. the rich can't pay for it all. it is all simple math of the middle-class and others will have to pay as well.

the commitment is so spread out, it is time to spread the tax wealth and quit spreading the you know what. you want big government, you will have to pay for big government. the doctor from vermont knows his man more than a trillion dollars going out than coming in year after year cannot be sustained so more are going to have to pay. i don't know the former presidential candidate had a weak moment but i hope you pass along this bit of reality and with it to the president we have got right now because barack obama is making a huge stink about the automatic spending cuts that are coming march 1, and in the scheme of three and a half trillion dollars budget, a rounding error at best. nevertheless the president showcasing props to make his case that it will need fewer media spectators, you name it. listen to howard dean, mr. president, misleading taxpayers to thinking we can

keep going on like we have been. that is even more cruel. i think this time the screamer has spoken softly and loudly, what do you think? >> governor dean has been making this point on several occasions since the election conveniently but he has said this on a variety of different networks saying the middle class eventually will have to get hit and unfortunately if you're middle-class america right now watching, he is right unless his party can get over their metaphysical ability to deal with the real driver of our debt, the bloated entitlement states and unfunded liabilities, you're going to have to raise taxes on everyone. so if republicans are smart in the next election cycle, they will go up the various democratics continue to run on this lie that we can stick it to the rich and say do you disagree

with governor dean and if you do, how do you make the math work? neil: governor dean has said what i think a lot of other prominent democrats including the president down to harry reid, nancy closely really also concur with. the math doesn't add up, if you can tax the rich at 100% it would not come close to covering our needs, this is a reallocation problem, this is a bad math problem and we can't sustain this and we want a government there is an argument to be made that they do want a bigger, better government, you will have to pay for it. you will have to pay a lot for people to provide, what you think of that? >> exactly. the path we're on right now is unsustainable. either we go the path europe has

gone down with a statement economy and cons of unemployment, tons of people taxed to death, or the other path with a more economic freedom and people can decide what they want to do, government isn't taking care of you from cradle to grave and they make that hard choice because this is not sustainable. neil: could also be stating something america's might well come and be willing to pay a little bit more if they have a government that will do a little bit, presumably a lot more and might be okay with it but throwing it out there that it is inevitable, so what are we going to do? >> i think a lot of people pay a little bit more. if you want to the american public and civic and fix everything by putting 20%, everybody would say okay. 25, 26, 27% and cut the

investment in the economy and half, a catastrophe for our ki kids. but that is where the money is at a middle-class is where the money is at. neil: i guess i want to get back to the basic math argument because half the people of this country don't pay any federal income taxes. some are military, some of gotten to the point they have more than the tax system, but all i know is the number was in the 20s and now it is approaching 50% and i only got out of school just a few years ago. okay, i lied about that, but the reality is that is simply not sustainable to me cannot hit up that 50% or more that it is not sustainable and the governor is stating the obvious, right? >> here's the thing, neil.

what the democrats have been looking at now for the last several years and several election cycles, they have this story going if we just ask the rich to pay a little bit more of their fair share, we will have a balanced approach and fix the problem. but that's vastly, vastly understates the real issue that we have all been talking about being unsustainable and one piece of mathematical data to back this up. coming up with the annual budget overview looking for the next 10 years. in 2023 the revenues the government will take in will be above the historical average, will be double what they were in 2012, military spending will be at an eight-year low and still the deficit will be almost $1 trillion, that is a snapshot of unsustainability. neil: you can always try to grow out of this. bill clinton reminded us of

that, cushioned by an internet boom, the likes of which we have not seen in quite some time. my point is you can grow your way out of this. is he also sang in this environment it is hard to picture a boom of that magnitude to pay for all of this? >> is absolutely unsustainable, we have to make some real cuts. you'rthey're making such a big l of these sequestration cuts. if this was really that bad as they are making it sound, obama would not be out golfing. this is not going to make a difference, what we need are actual cuts to entitlement programs. we can't keep spending all this money we don't have. neil: i could see the same with democrats and republicans, but michael, your thoughts. >> i think what we have to convince the american people is the idea that we can just tinker

and tinker and do as we have been doing and managed to get by the last 50 or 60 years, that is not an option. people say why not? as they spoke, this time is different saying we're in a different point in time, 10,000 db boomers, going into that system, does not work anymore. neil: i want to thank you all. does anybody remember that meteor that rammed russia last week? now we know, turns out it was not some consolation, it was all sequestration. everything the president commit to have to wonder, does he risk creating even more panic? or be a name and not a number? scottrade. ron: i'm never alone with scottrade. i can always call or stop by my local office.

they're nearby and ready to help. so when i have questions, i can talk to someone who knows exactly how i trade. because i don't trade like everybody. i trade like me. that's why i'm with scottrade. announcer: scottrade- proud to be ranked "best overall client experience."

today is gonna be an important day for us. you ready? we wanna be our brother's keeper. what's number two we wanna do? bring up to 90 decatherms. how bout ya, joe? let's go ahead and bring it online. attention on sit attention on site. now starting unit nine. some of the world's cleanest gas turbines are now powering some of america's biggest cities. siemens. answers. >> people will lose their jobs, jeopardizing the military readiness and thousands of

teachers and educators will be laid off, tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find childcare for their kids. neil: and there will be famine and most likely firestorms. radiation. let me cut to the chase. he's $85 billion in automatic cuts go through, to be armageddon in our streets? the president make a case to avoid the sequestration cuts he helped create. he says because both sides would never allow it to come to this but barring any action, it will come to this, but before we begin spreading panic, let me impart a little reality. it may seem like a lot until heu realize $3.6 trillion budget, it is barely a rounding error. his $85 billion creating this kind of stink and barely moves the deficit neutral, what is going to happen when we have to cut a lot more than that and

haven't shown any results at all? peter. >> the first thing you have to remember wwth this is 85 billion is actually too high of a figure. about $40 billion because $40 billion of these cuts are not scheduled to actually occurred until after 2013, they will just be attributed to the 2013 fiscal year, so look at more like $45 billion in spending reductions next year. neil: that is such a hassle. i'm not here to judge if they are merited right now or not, but if that is the stink we create over relative chump change in the scheme of things, too latthe latest chump change , how will we ever get serious about this?

>> don't think we're going to be >> to give an idea of how postures these claims are to talk about the hubris of the government trying to say something that is barely a rounding error to make those kinds of cuts create chaos, it is ridiculous. from 2000-2011 the government spending, federal government spending increased $170 billion every year. what we're talking about is a cost of less than half of what the typical annual increase has been. does anybody believe taking that level of a cut is going to cause chaos in our society no longer able to get through the day? neil: in your home country, they actually did, they made a serious effort and a lot more serious than anything we have attempted to do. what do they think of the fight we're having over this?

>> it is really quite extraordinary. what is america doing at the moment? the defense secretary and sequester going on which does not get down to the nitty-gritty at all. obama playing golf with tiger woods. fundamentally i have hope for sequester because it could make americans set up. it will hurt on some levels. teachers will lose jobs, problems with the faa, americans might be saying hang on a minute, you have to get your act together here. you're taking money away from lobbyists, you can actually focus on governing the country and sort these problems out properly. neil: two days in a row i have agreed with you. the so-called ciccone and cuts the president alluded to today

that i might have fewer meat inspectors, or we'll all be a security risk at the airport, our kids are going to be in class of 1000 students. we know we can show some discretion and clever alternatives to so-called ciccone and cuts coming but we scare people in the meantime. >> that is right. a lot of this really is scare tactics and it ignores how budget spending has grown over the last decade or so. the total federal budget in real dollars with about $2 trillion, now it's about 3.5, $3.6 trillion scheduled to grow about $5 trillion the next decade or so. does anybody really think the economy couldn't function? a decade ago we were spending $2 trillion, trillion and a half

dollars less an hour trying to cut 40 billion? and it will be catastrophe? >> that is what they want, they want us to think we can't live without them. without government spending the economy will come to a grinding halt, that is how you get more power. politicians have been using these scare tactics. neil: just the real point that if they were so scared they would go out on vacation and they would not feign shock at what they knew was coming down the pike. they both are mishandling this, believe me, for scared out of her wits something is coming down the pike, you don't leave the room. >> i think republicans haven't handled this well historically because republicans said they don't like these cuts. maybe they'll let that happen because it is what we can get.

the controlled washington for a while, they did not make the cuts, increased real spending quite a bit. neil: they should stand up and say i am recovering. where do you think this is going to go? >> everybody fundamentally knows you're spending too much on defense. more than the next 10 countries combined. it is not america's job is to be the policeman. everybody knows these things, so fundamentally there will have to be some change. get the lobbyists out. shared sacrifice for everybody. neil: don't go anywhere, you're going to come back a little bit later in the broadcast. forget what the fed clamping down on gaza, they are clamping down how folks store their guns.

lone sheriff's could inspect their homes. the judges here to decide if this is all too nutty. small buss take theseags to room 12 please. [ garth ] bjors small busiss earns double miles on every purchase every day. produce delivery. [ bjorn ] just put it on my spark card. [ garth why settle for less? ahh, oh! [ garth ] great businesses deserve limited reward here's your wake up call. [ male announcer ] get the spark business card from capital one and earn unlimited rewards. choose double miles or 2% cash back on every purchasevery day. what's in your w wallet? [ crows ] now where's the snooze button?

neil: as washington, d.c., pushes for tougher firearm laws, washington state is whipping out a law that has some folks up in arms. pushing a bill allowing police to search homes to check whether your gun is stored properly. but the judge says this is a total violation of the constitution and you do not want to mess with the constitution. even though you lost some weight, ready to kick some major constitutional buck. can they do this? >> no, they cannot do this.

first they want a permission slip to exercise your second amendment right, now they want the right to come into your home. the supreme court has made it clear there are very few ways to please him gain access your home against your will. if they are chasing you in hot pursuit because he committed a crime and are running out of the bank with a sack of cash over your backyard into a house they can follow you into the house. the only other way is if they have a search warrant they can only get a search warrant is issued by a judge, the police have demonstrated under oath probable cause. the likelihood you have committed or are committing a crime or have evidence of a crime. they said the we cannot go intoa private home for an inspection. they can go into a restaurant, they can send health inspectors make sure the restaurant is serving healthy food to the public they cannot do this to a private home from the court has made this very clear as recently

as last year. neil: what if you have to properly lock up your arms, for any number of reasons you get legal entry into your house they discover low and behold arms are not properly locked up. >> if they are lawfully present in the house and see evidence of a crime, they can prosecute for the crime. but if they enter the house under an unlawful purpose, it may find in the house cannot be used against you. neil: what if i say i am a neighbor, they are not locking up their gun. >> i am not sure it works because it effectively impairs your ability to use it in an emergency, that is another second issue.

neil: if it was a state law. >> there's no way to enforce it consistent with the constitution. you have to have evidence and an anonymous tip is not evidence. neil: so just another case of overreaching? >> yeah. you ought to have a gun. there is no depth they won't stoop because they want us to rely on the government, they want us to give up our liberty and of our freedoms so we will rely on them and we will keep them in power. that is not the constitution, not the america the founders gave us, that is why we have a second amendment to rely on ourselves. neil: do you get a sense they throw all of these things hoping one or two of them stick?

>> i don't know if this in colorado will make any sense, but they're probably trying a lot of things to see what will work because their mentality is the government can do anything in majority wants them to do. as long as a majority supports them, they will give the majority what they think they want out of a piece of the government pie. >> they're trying to make the pie a little bit smaller. how much is too much. of course, all hell will break loose. in the scheme of things. as a libertarian, what are your thoughts on this? speak up my thoughts are that shrinks the government, it is a good thing.

the government spends way too much money. these should be just or a shrink of increase. instead of going up like this, to go up like that. it is still going up. the government has been living for too long on taxpayers willing to cough up money and not say what am i getting in return and borrowing money expected future to pay back. we're still paying interest on the debt from world war i. still paying interest on it. that is why we have $16.5 trillion in debt. neil: you don't want to mess with him. the dow closing in on a record. not based on what is happening in this guys house, i am talking your house. you decide. my mother made the best toffee in the world.

it's delicious. so now we've turned her toffee into a business. my goal was to take an idea and make it happen. i'm janet long and i formed my toffee company through legalzoom. never really thought i would make money doing what i love [ robert ] we created legalzoom to help people start their business and launch their dreams. go to legalzoom.com today and ma your busine dream a reality. at legalzoom.com we put the law on your side.

i work for 47 different companies. well, technically i work for one. that company, the united states postal service® works for thousands of home businesses. because at usps.com® you can pay, print and have your packages picked up for free. i can even drop off free boxes. i wear a lot of hats. well, technically i wear one. the u.s. postal service®, no business too small.

neil: look at that, moving closer and closer to a record. and look at your house, at least moving closer and closer to the right direction, up in price. i'm here to argue there is a connection. histocks to advancing as long

housing is improving and lately home prices and building have been searching for my latest crackpot theory, this keeps happening, a new record is coming. whether the disturbing news unexpected drop is signaling we are getting a little ahead of ourselves on housing. wells fargo housing market index down to a reading of 46 from 47 in january. not a calamity but a concern. this connection between the two. what do you think? >> there's a direct correlation. housing industries about 4% of gdp. as it improves, people get to work, getting back to 2005 levels putting people back to work. i don't think that is the reason

the market has been going up. neil: you don't have to jump ugly with me. i don't know who leads whom here, but in the '87 cras87 crad we can argue with real estate out of the way, who do you think is leading? people say my home is not worth this anymore, just moved up in value, do they feel better about their financial? >> relative to the house, yes. starting to see prices come up a bit and also an issue of demand and supply. 2005 brand-new homes being built $1.4 million drop down to $500,000, starting to pick up again. neil: in the case of housing and the market, we are simply back

to where we were five years ago. we're not advancing to new territory, so if you make about housing and where it is going and the market and where they're going? >> housing has a coalition, but you're looking at a bounce in the market. in my opinion i think there's a lot more downside risk than upside potential. we have a global economy very fragile, going into a triple dip recession, europe still slow, even germany slowing talk about 17 million to 7 million cars this year that will impact the united states, we are not impervious to that slow down. in the land of the blind, the one i manned is king. look at the sequester issue.

but the deficit, look at unemployment is at a very unhealthy levels. i see a lot of downside risk. people who are scared about is it too late to get into this market, my view is you ought to answer the question, it is a good return. neil: not bad. in this environment there is another thought, cached an cashd to be bottled up is now inching its way with the case of corporations alone beginning to be tapped now. all they need is things better than they were. you say that could be short-lived. >> you may see another 5% with the momentum in the market could you have 15%-20% downside risk. a lot of the money is under

money market funds and the response is what are you going to do with the money? you're not getting returns. record inflows. people are saying where do you want to put your money? you're going to start seeing it. you're going to see a rotation. location on the bonds and if that happens, prices go down, interest rates go up. which has been subsidizing this economy for three years. some good, some bad. it is not sustainable, it is not sustainable, so i am very concerned. neil: on this sequestration thing, or the market running up despite the deadline or because of it? >> i think the market says it is never going to happen.

neil: with a really regret the cuts if they come to pass? >> another president is scaring everybody, but we need to get serious. i would fire the whole lot of them. neil: always good seeing you, my friend. 33 straight days now and counting, what is behind the pain at the pump? the fix is much easier than you think.

neil: make it 33 days in a row now, 33 days gas prices continue to climb amid growing concerns. president and ceo unless we drilled more here, you'll be seeing a lot more of this activity at the pump. welcome, very good to have you. there are a lot of other driving factors, the least of which the

weather and the excuses, many in your industry, but he stepped back and say a lot more, we are just not tapping the stuff we have here, right? >> global production 90 million barrels, u.s. consumes 20% of that, 18 million barrels per day. expected to go about 10% in 2013, but there's a lot more we can be doing to address that shortfall. neil: i hear experts like you said that and the state of the union address saying we have never been drilling for as much oil as we are drilling now and open a contract to the degree we have now and i scratch my head saying man, oh man, i am confused. speak the majority of the production growth has been on state land, not federal land. when he says we will streamline permitting all the above, we welcome that. we just have yet to see that. neil: a lot of the increased

activity has yet come to pass. so it might sound good on paper, but the reality is we are not presently the beneficiaries of more oil we are tapping here. so, when he targets your industry, take away the tax breaks, whatever they are, you can afford it, and give them to promising technologies, solar, wind, etc., what do you think of it? >> we need all the above approach. wind, solar, nuclear, coal, natural gas, all the source of energy to meet the growing demand. neil: with the keystone pipeli pipeline, protesting in the frigid cold i am thinking to myself a signal we don't do

something, we will be between a rock and a hard place. do you think if he changes his mind on keystone oil despite the environmentalist, is that a step in the right direction? >> absolutely. without question. neil: do you think he is going to do that? >> i do. neil: the fact of the matter is far more threats to the environment and the benefit in canada more that will affect us, what would you say? >> we need something to bridge the gap, we're all for the wind and the solar, cannot go from where we are today to the wind and solar. we need clean burning natural gas and look at the amount of jobs created in our industry, both from a corporate level and federal registry from the

royalties and individual taxes as we pay very significantly. neil: if we pass up a chance to address the keystone thing, the canadians do business with the chinese. we go ahead and do severe damage and damage relations with our neighbors to the north and this goes beyond oil. they will sell the oil to a buyer somewhere in the world, it should be us. neil: it does not appear to be us just now. i like to pick your brain on washington spending under control, the brouhaha over the minor cuts. and we can't get our act together on that, in your own regard when you hear and see what goes on in washington and the finger-pointing back and

forth and the hoopla over nothing, are you worried? >> yes. your previous segment with a daunting outlook around the globe, he even said we have to throw the guys out and have a third party, that is the frustration a lot of us do face and have to make decisions in hiring decisions and we see the non-activity coming out of washington which all has an adverse impact on individuals. neil: you cast the puck on both sides in that respect. good for you. good seeing you. let's just say he doesn't act typical. apparently he swears. his company wasn't a one trick pony. he provokes folks, but apparently he gets the job done, folks. so before we get to who he is,

maybe a better question, why can't you be more like him? 4g, huh? verizon 4g lte. 700 megahertz spectrum, end-to-end, pure lte build. the most consistent speeds indoors or out. and, obviously, astonishing throughput. obviously... you know how fast our home wifi is? yeah. this is basically just asast. oh. and verizon's got more fast lte coverage than all oer networks combined. it's better. yes. oh, why didn't you just say that? huh-- what is he doing? progressive direct and other car insurance companies? yes. but you're progressive, and they're them. yes. but they're here. yes. are you...? there? yes. no. are you them? i'm me. but those rates are for... them. so them are here. yes! you want to run through it again? no, i'm good. you got it? yes. rates for us and them -- now that's progressive.

call or click today.

or a charity case. a trble maker. worthless. just a stupid mistake. i don't think i'm a lost cause. i'm just a kid.

youth villages believes that no child is a lost cause. not a single one. because a stable loving family can help any child succeed. and we have an 80% success rate that proves it. if you agree, find out how you can help. at youth vlages.org >> apologize for swearing. i have been praying really hard to kick you out. neil: that guy talking to analysts, don't want to offend them. it doesn't seem to care. pretty blunt, very bold but is that wrong? the ceo under fire for attacking analysts who say the company was one-dimensional read in this vapid world we could do worse than getting salty and get serious. i fully agree with that.

the stock is raising to multiyear highs. it is registering. we could use a little bit more frankness, but we don't see that, do we. >> the higher up in rank you go, the weaker you get. you want it straight, i always looked to the noncommissioned officers, there's nothing worse in the army than the rest of an army sergeant major. all he wants you to do is to do your job, play as a team. i think there is a great deal of wisdom out there in the tactical units and we can borrow a little bit of that in my opinion. neil: what little i do know, you speak your mind and everyone says you know where you stand, that is what i always try to be on your good side because i know

you will beat people up. there's a great value to put in what you mean and what you say. there's how serious the sequestration is, congress is on vacation and i am thinking that doesn't jive. it is armageddon or it isn't. >> a couple of points. a sergeant major tells you get the job done, keep it simple, play as a team. those three things are mentioned seem to be missing in this town. what is at stake here from my perspective at least is the fate of the armed forces. seems like everybody wants to do the job, but they over complicated. maybe we ought to go down and sit around with a bunch of sergeant majors and they will tell you how to get this job done. keep it simple, keep it clean,

get a go at your station and then you can go on vacation. neil: what bothers me most, perhaps it came up with the president pontificating with the current crisis, and of all the hell that there is to pay, all of the drugs back, fewer drug and food administration, he came up with this idea along with republicans, and it flies in the face of what he said just a few weeks ago that he was going to address and incumbent upon us to address our deficit and i don't know which one it is. so i wouldn't mind him just being consistent. i hear politicians to be fair, talking out of both sides of their mouth. >> i agree. my focus is not on the food and

drug administration, as you have heard me say many times, if some poor sergeant has five or six rotations in iraq and afghanistan and a family winds up suffering for this, i think that'll end up being unforgivable. there is a lot of overstatement, that is true, but the bottom line is this. if our front-line soldiers doing the work don't get properly trained or extended in afghanistan too long because the government can't make up its mind about sequestration. neil: general, always good seeing you. thank you very much. neil: doesn't he ever read the calorie counts at restaurants and think they might be off? turns out they are. food for thought. my mother made the best toffee in the world.

it's delicious. so now we've turned her toffee into a business.

my goal was toake an idea and make it happen. i'm janet long and i formed my toffee company through legalzoom. never really thought i would make money doing what i love. [ robert ] we created legalzoom to help people start theibusiness and launch their dreams. go to legalzoom.com today and make your business dream a reality. at legalzoom.com we put the law on your side. and make your business dream a reality. all stations come over to mithis is for real this time. step seven point two one two. rify and lock. command is locked. five seconds. three, two, one. standing by for capture. the most innovative softwaren the planet... dragon is captured. is connecting today's leading companies to places beyond it. siemens. answers.

neil: all right, if you are what you eat, fat chance figuring how much you are eating. the attrition is our war in the calorie counts on food labels and the like can be off by 30% or more so 400-calorie burgers will be 520 calories an and a 1000-calorie burrito more like 1300 calories. the proof is in the pudding. lots more fattening pudding. don't trust the numbers. we couldn't book a fat person for this segment? oh, wait, i'm hosting it. 30%, like congress coming up with these numbers. >> food science turns out to not be an exact science. worry is the food nanny of the world, michael limburg and those people will be using this as a pretext to regulate food and food intake even further than they already are but what they should be doing is taking this

as a reason to not do that because all the government's food standards they put out the last several decades or so have been based on this exact calorie counting system we're finding out is wrong. neil: these are pretty egregious slips. >> oklahoma state university very important study and proven labeling helps the people who need it most are people who need to lose weight, let's face it, but it's not really going to help you lose weight, is it? no. basically let's face it, a public health catastrophe, obesity. costs america more like her $37 billion per year. we go a long ways.

neil: we put trust in these numbers we have the proper range on a burrito. speak of the best diving history was world war ii when the government told us what to eat. history here. neil: what do you make of this? i understand what she is saying about you have to wake up and realize we are off by 30%, the issue isn't that, but we could should not be eating this to begin with. >> i'm not looking forward to a world war ii diet rationing program. but you look at this, just have to laugh at the irony. the government forces as this is to provide this supposedly helpful information and shocker, using the guidelines an and thep

not being all that helpful. some people want accurate caloric information, other people won't care so much. that sounds like a market, won't it? let them operate the way they want to operate, those that want to target customers that care about accurate content can provide information to assure their customers the calorie counts are accurate in their clients have to pay a little bit more because figuring this out takes time and money. neil: it takes a lot of money. a lot of these folks like michael bloomberg, their hearts might have been in the right place to make sure we are eating right, but forcing them to put on numbers that are wrong or layoff read if you don't know a burrito loaded has a lot in it, you are a fat loser. >> people want good information,

people want good information. it is better to have better ways to count the things that people know if your eating a bucket of fried chicken and a gallon of doughnuts every day, we eat doughnuts in gallons? if you know you're not supposed to eat that kind of food and you're trying to maintain a healthy low weight, this is not the way. neil: you can go too far with this stuff, can't you? >> obesity is threatening to shorten u.s. life expectancy for the first time since the civil war. it would be a bit annoying. you are a mean man. neil: you're saying mistakes and all, clarify what we're putting in, enough